אמר רב חסדא: הני תלת מילי אישתני שמייהו מכי חרב בית המקדש: חלפתא ערבתא, ערבתא חלפתא. מאי נפקא מינה? ללולב. שיפורא חצוצרתא, חצוצרתא שיפורא. מאי נפקא מינה? לשופר של ראש השנה. פתורתא פתורא, פתורא פתורתא. למאי נפקא מינה? למקח וממכר. אמר אביי: אף אני אומר: בי כסי הובלילא, הובלילא בי כסי. למאי נפקא מינה? למחט הנמצא בעובי בית הכוסות. אמר רבא בר יוסף: אף אני אומר: בבל בורסיף, בורסיף בבל. למאי נפקא מינה? לגיטי נשים.
Rav Hisda said: Since the destruction of the Temple the following three things have had their names replaced. [What was formerly called] hilpeta[1] [is now called] arabta[2] and what was called arabta is now called hilpeta. How does this matter legally? With regard to the lulav. [What was formerly called] shifora[3] [is now called] hazozerah,[4] and what was hazozerah is now called shifora. In what respect does this matter legally? In respect of the shofar for the New Year [What was formerly called] patora[5] [is now called] patorta[6] and what was patorta is now patora. In what respect does this matter legally? In respect of business transactions. Abbayye said: I also add [that what was formerly called] be kase[7] [is now called] hublila[8] and the former hublila is now be kase. In what respect does this matter legally? In respect of a needle found in the fleshy part of the second stomach.[9] Rabba bar Yosef said: I also add that [what was formerly called] Babylon [is now called] Borsif[10] and the former Borsif is now Babylon. In what respect does this matter legally? In respect of women’s divorce bills.
[1] An invalid type of willow for the blessing of the four species on Sukkot.
[2] A valid willow for the blessing of the four species on Sukkot.
[3] A shofar that is valid for blasting on Rosh Hashanah.
[4] A silver trumpet that is invalid for blasting on Rosh Hashanah.
[5] A large table used by money changers.
[6] A small table used by money changers.
[7] The second stomach of ruminants.
[8] The first stomach of ruminants.
[9] This would render the animal trefah.
[10] Borsippa in Iraq.
@General observations
The gemara discusses various linguistic errors that had penetrated the Hebrew language in the Land of Israel following the destruction of the Second Temple. It is difficult to believe that Babylonian amoraim, who lived in or even after the fourth century, would have had such exact information about Hebrew words used in the Land of Israel during the first century. Still, the fact that bShab 36a contains almost the same passage indicates that this sugya was popular and may indeed have preserve an ancient linguistic tradition.
Ha-Meiri explains how the misunderstanding regarding various words could have caused serious halakhic problems:
יש מקומות שנתבלבל להם הלשון ונתחלף להם לקרות לצפצפה ערבה וצריך להזהר בה על פי הסימנים שהזכרנו (בסוגיה). וכן נתחלף להם לקרות את החצוצרות והא שופר פשוט בשם שופר שסתמו כפוף, וצריך להזהר שלא לטעות בלשון וישתדל בשופר הכפוף על הדרך שביארנו במקומו (ב' שבת לו ע"א). וכן בית הכוסות שאמרו (ב' חולין נ, ע"ב) במחט הנמצא בו שמצד אחד כשירה מפני שהדופן בצידו מגינה עליו ומשני הצדדים טרפה, יש מקומות שנשתבשו לקרות מקומות שבכרס בשם בית הכוסות וטועים להכשיר מחט הנמצא שם עד שיעבור שני, ואינם יודעים שהדופן דק ואין כאן מגן, וצריך להזהר בה. וכן ידעת ש"המביא גט ממדינת הים צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" (מ' גיטין א א), ואין צריך עוד קיום. ובבל הרי היא כארץ ישראל לגיטין מפני שהם בני תורה ובקיאים. אבל בורסיף, שהיה מקום הסמוך לבבל, אינן בני תורה ואין סומכין עליהם בכך, ועכשיו נתחלף להם בורסיף בבבל וטועים לסמוך עליהם, וצריך להזהר בה, וכן בכל כיוצא בזה מן השיבושים הרגילים תמיד בסבות אלו ובדומים להם.
There are places where language has been altered and they now call a poplar a willow and one should be cautious, according to the signs we have listed. And also they call a trumpet, which is a straight shofar, by the name of shofar, which should be curved, and one should be cautious and not be misled by the language and one should attempt to blast in a curved shofar, as we explained in its rightful place (in bShab 36a). And also regarding beit ha-kosot (second stomach of ruminants) for which it was said (in bHul 50b) that [if] a needle [was] found in one of its sides [the beast] is kosher, because the side protects it, but [if it was found] on both sides it is trefah. In some places [this term] has been perverted [and they now] call places within the stomach beit ha-kosot, and declare kosher a needle found therein, when it had not penetrated through to the other side, and they do not know that [at this location in the beast’s anatomy] the side is thin and there is no protection, and one should be cautious of this. And also you know that whoever brings a divorce bill (for a woman) from abroad must declare: In my presence it was written and signed, and it is valid (mGit 1:1). And Babylon is like the Land of Israel in matters of divorce, because they are learned in Torah. But in Borsif, which was a place close to Babylon, they were not learned in Torah and are not to be trusted in this. And now Borsif and Babylon have been mixed one with the other and [one] mistakenly trusts both, and one should be cautious in this, and so too in all other common mistakes in such circumstances and in others similar to them.[1]
[1] Ha-Meiri, Bet HaBehira to bSuk 34a.
The practical halakhic difficulties enumerated by Ha-Meiri include using the wrong type of willow branch for the blessing over the four species, blowing the wrong type of shofar, declaring meat from a trefah animal as kosher, and declaring an invalid overseas get valid.
@Feminist observations
The last mistake cited by Rabba bar Yosef in our gemara (or by Rav Ashi in the parallel version in bShabbat) concerns the confusion between Babylon and Borsif, which can invalidate a get. Such an annulment can be most detrimental both to women, whose subsequent marriage would be considered bigamous, and to their offspring, who would be considered illegitimate (mamzerim).
mGit 1:1 outlines the geographic boundaries crossed by a get sent from place to place and their significance for its function:
המביא גט ממדינת הים צריך שיאמר: בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. רבן גמליאל אומר: אף המביא מן הרקם ומן החגר. ר' אליעזר אומר: אפילו מכפר לודים ללוד. וחכ"א: אינו צריך שיאמר: בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, אלא המביא ממדינת הים. והמוליך והמביא ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים צריך שיאמר: בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. רשב"ג אומר: אפילו מהגמוניא להגמוניא.
The bearer of a bill of divorce [get] from [a husband in] foreign parts[1] is required to declare [on presenting it to the wife]: In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed. Rabban Gamli’el says: [This declaration is] also [required] if he brings it from Reqem or from Hegar [which are located on the southern border of Palestine]. Rabbi Eli‘ezer says: Even if he brings it from Kfar Ludim to Lud [neighboring cities on opposite sides of the border]. The sages, however, say that the declaration ‘In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed’, is required only from one who brings a bill of divorce [from foreign parts to the Land of Israel] or who takes it [from the Land of Israel to foreign parts]. The bearer [of such a document] from one country to another in foreign parts is also required to declare: In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed. Rabban Shime‘on ben Gamli’el says: It is required even if he takes it from one province to another.
[1] Literally: ‘a province of the sea’ meaning all countries outside of Palestine and Babylonia.
According to the halakhah established by the tannaitic sages, a messenger who brings a get from a husband living overseas to his wife in the Land of Israel, or from a husband living in one country to a wife in another, must have witnessed the writing and signing of the get by the husband. Although certain other sages wished to apply this ruling to outlaying provinces (Rabban Gamli’el) or places inhabited by non-Jews in the Land of Israel (Rabbi Eli‘ezer), nevertheless, the sages’ halakhah limiting the ruling to overseas prevailed.
The amoraic sages Rabbah and Rava offered differing explanations for this ruling: “Rabbah says: It is because [the Jews in foreign parts] are ignorant of the rule of [writing the bill of divorcement] for a specific [woman]. Rava says: It is because it is not easy to find witnesses who can confirm the signatures” (רבה אמר: לפי שאין בקיאים לשמה. רבא אמר: לפי שאין עדים מצויים לקיימו – bGit 2a-b). Rabbah emphasizes the messenger’s role. According to him, the inhabitants of “provinces of the sea,” or in other words, cities outside of the Land of Israel are not well-versed in halakhic rules. Consequently, they do not know that a get must be specifically written for the particular woman who is being divorced, so that it cannot be transferred from one woman to another. This ruling is based upon the verse in Deut 24:1: “[…] and he writes her a bill of divorcement,” which specifies that a get must be written for his wife only and not for any other woman. As opposed to Rabbah, Rava emphasizes the testimony of the messenger. Rava believes that the husband may eventually come to his ex-wife’s residence and question the get’s validity by claiming that he did not write it and that the witnesses’ signatures are forged. The husband can rely upon the fact that the people where his ex-wife lives are not acquainted with the witnesses, since they came from a far-away place. In both cases, the allegation of an invalid get can cause serious complications. A husband who divorced his wife can later on claim that the get was not written specifically for his wife and is therefore not valid (Rabbah). Or he can claim that the witnesses’ signatures are forged (Rava). If his former wife had subsequently remarried, her children from the second marriage, would then be considered mamzerim (=illegitimate). Even if the get would subsequently be declared valid, it would be difficult to publicize the matter and undo the damage done to the reputations of the former wife and her children. Thus, in order to prevent any possibility of invalidating a get brought from overseas, where people are not well-versed in halakhah, or questioning the validity of the witnesses’ signatures, the sages established that the messenger must witness the writing and signing of the get.
Both Rabbah and Rava wished to protect the wife from any claim that her get is not bona fide. They recognized that such a step is necessary in order to allow the woman to remarry and raise a new family, without worrying about their future status. This apparently was also the basis of the tannaitic statements in the Mishnah. Moreover, the tannaitic period was a time of destruction and distress. There were probably numerous cases of geographical separation between married couples, which led to divorces initiated by the husband. These divorces, according to some rabbinic statements, occurred often due to the prevailing conditions and not because the husbands truly wanted a divorce.
Further down in the Bavli, Babylonian amoraim claim, quite differently, and evidently in contradiction to the mishnah they are interpreting, that the rules of Gittin, applicable to the Land of Israel, are also applicable in Babylonia: “Said Rabbi Abba, in the name of Rav Huna: We have made ourselves in Babylonia like the Land of Israel with reference to bills of divorce since [the time when] Rav came to Babylonia” (אמר ר' אבא אמר רב הונא: עשינו עצמינו בבבל כא"י לגיטין מכי אתא רב לבבל) (bGit 6a). Although this assertion of the Babylonians is rejected by some amoraim of the Land of Israel, in the Bavli it is left to stand as a halakhic ruling. Like in mGit 1:1, which seeks to determine the exact borders of the Land of Israel in order to understand where exactly the laws of gittin become applicable, the question of the exact borders of Babylonia are discussed in detail in bGit 6a-b. Various names are mentioned in this context (such as Ctesiphon and Bei Ardashir), but Borsif as such is not attested in this sugya. The Babylonian amora, Rav Yosef, however, rules that for gittin, the definition of the borders of Babylonia is the same as that for genealogies (יוחסין).
A discussion of the borders of Babylonia for the purpose of genealogical purity is discussed in bQid 71a-72a. The Babylonians were very proud of their pure Jewish lineage in comparison with the Jews of the Land of Israel, but were willing to admit that just beyond the borders of Babylonia this purity ceases abruptly. Therefore it was important for the Babylonian amoraim to define the borders of Babylonia for the purpose of genealogical purity. In the Vilna print of bGit 72a Borsif, as such, is also not mentioned. Rather the text refers to Borsi (בורסי). However the Munich MS has here the version Borsif (בורסיף).
The confusion between Borsif and Babylonia in our sugya represents one example of how geographical distance and communications problems can affect a get. Since Borsif was mistakenly identified as part of Babylonia, a messenger bringing a get from there to a woman in the Land of Israel or to Babylonia would not be required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence, but if it was not part of Babylonia, then he would be required to do so. Failure to do so could lead to a subsequent invalidation of the get and may result in the abovementioned birth of mamzerim.